17
Appendix A Appendix A: CHSRA Plans, Profiles, and original Evaluation Matrix materials Source: CHSRA Preliminary and Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Reports
Appendix A
Appendix A: CHSRA Plans, Profiles, and original Evaluation Matrix materials
Source: CHSRA Preliminary and Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Reports
190
193
P.O.E. 1
93+62.0
7
200
205
210
215
220225
230235
240245
250255 260 265 270 275 280 285 290 295 300 305 310 315 320 325 330 335 340 345
P.O.B.
200+00.0
0
T.S. 251
+36.20
S.C. 254
+81.20
C.S. 259
+67.28
S.T. 263
+12.28
T.S. 351
+01.68
P.I. 214
+83.98
P.I. 257
+25.52
T.S.
209+49.1
0
S.C. 212+04.10
C.S. 217
+27.90
S.T. 219
+82.90
EX
AT-
GR
AD
E16
TH
ST
EX
OV
ER
PA
SS
MA
RIP
OS
A
ST
EX
OV
ER
PA
SS
22
ND
ST
EX
OV
ER
PA
SS
23
RD
ST
EX
UN
DE
RP
AS
SC
ES
AR
CH
AV
EZ
EX
UN
DE
RP
AS
SE
VA
NS
AV
E
MA
RI
N
ST
EX
UN
DE
RP
AS
S
EX
UN
DE
RP
AS
SN
AP
OL
EA
N
ST
EX
UN
DE
RP
AS
SJ
ER
RO
LD
AV
E
EX
UN
DE
RP
AS
SQ
UI
NT
ST
EX
OV
ER
PA
SS
OA
KD
AL
E
AV
E
EX
OV
ER
PA
SS
WIL
LI
AM
S
AV
E
VC=600’
K=46995
0.00%0.31%
0.01% 0.22%VC=600’
K=1957
VC=600’
K=2004
VC=600’
K=2839
VC=600’
K=1281
0.36%
ST
ATI
ON
CA
LT
RAI
N
ST
RE
ET
22
ND
CALTRAIN
WITHIN 7TH STREETHORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT
EX
OV
ER
PA
SS
280
BRI
DG
ES
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUEHORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT WITHIN
EX
AT-
GR
AD
EC
OM
MO
N
ST
IRWIN ST
REET
HU
BBELL ST
REET
16
TH
ST
RE
ET
MISSISSIPPI AVENUE
PENNSYLVANIA AV
ENUE
MA
RIP
OS
A
ST
RE
ET
18
TH
ST
RE
ET
19
TH
ST
RE
ET
20
TH
ST
RE
ET
INTERSTATE HIG
HWAY 280
ST
RE
ET
23
RD
25
TH
ST
RE
ET
ST
RE
ET
CE
SA
R
CH
AV
EZ
INTERSTATE HIGHW AY 280
MA
RIN
ST
RE
ET
NA
PO
LE
ON
ST
RE
ET
EV
AN
S
AV
EN
UE
JE
RR
OL
D
AV
EN
UE
QUIN
T ST
REET
OA
KD
AL
EAV
EN
UE
PA
LO
U
AV
EN
UE
NE
WH
ALL ST
REET
TO
PE
KAA
VE
NUE
TH
OR
NT
ON
AV
EN
UE
WIL
LIA
MS
AV
EN
UE
22
ND
ST
RE
ET
CALIFORNIAWithout ever leaving the ground.
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY San Francisco - San Jose
PLAN
PROFILE
(AERIAL/BERM)ELEVATED
(TRENCH/TUNNEL)BELOW GRADE
NOTES:
PROFILES SHOWN ARE TOR.2.CENTERLINE SHOWN IS PROPOSED MT2.1.
Length: 4.8 miles Land Use: Urban
SAN FRANCISCO
SAN JOSE DIRIDON
Subsection #1-1
A B C D E
HORIZ. SCALE:
VERT. SCALE:100050 50
1"=50’
500 500 10000
1"=500’
1.03 1.32 2.07 2.29 3.21 3.87
tracks and its supporting columns are constraints in the northern portion of the subsection.tunnels and several embankment and trench segments. The I-280 freeway structure above the The existing Caltrain alignment passes through a series of hills and valleys necessitating 4 crossings near Mission Bay, all other street crossings in this subsection are grade separated. This subsection is located within the City and County of San Francisco. Except for two North of Common Street to South Portal Tunnel No. 4 (MP. 1.03 to MP. 5.77)
< 60’ROW WIDTH
> 100’ROW WIDTH
EXISTING (APPROX)
70’ - 79’
ROW WIDTH
60’ - 69’
ROW WIDTH
80’ - 89’
ROW WIDTH
90’ - 99’
ROW WIDTH
EXISTING CALTRAIN TUNNEL 3 LIMITS
STATION
STATION
STATION
EXISTING CALTRAIN TUNNELS 1-2 LIMITS
CALTRAIN GRADEEXISTING
OPTIONDESIGNROADWAY
(HST ONLY)(DEEP TUNNEL)BELOW GRADE
August 2010
(San Francisco)
DRAFT Supplemental Vertical Alternatives Discussion - Option A
cdavid
03-
AU
G-2010
10:26
IP_
PW
P:d
ms05695\
Subseg
ment_1_
Plan_
Profile1
A.dgn
ROWEXISTING
AG-T-2
SECTIONTYPICAL
INTERSTATE
280
180
205+00 210+00 215+00 220+00 225+00 230+00 235+00 240+00 245+00 250+00 255+00 260+00 265+00 270+00 275+00 280+00 285+00 290+00 295+00 300+00 305+00 310+00 315+00 320+00 325+00 330+00 335+00 340+00 345+00 350+00200+00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
180 180
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
180
-120
295 300305 310
315 320325 330
335 340345 350
355 360 365 370 375380
385390
395400 405 410 415 420
425430
435440
T.S. 351
+01.68
S.C. 359
+16.68
C.S. 368
+84.75
S.T. 376
+99.75
T.S. 397
+95.89
S.C. 406
+10.89
C.S. 427
+30.65
S.T. 435
+45.65
P.I. 364
+02.98
P.I. 416
+80.60
EX
UN
DE
RP
AS
SJ
ER
RO
LD
AV
E
EX
UN
DE
RP
AS
SQ
UI
NT
ST
EX
OV
ER
PA
SS
OA
KD
AL
E
AV
E
EX
OV
ER
PA
SS
PA
UL
AV
E
EX
OV
ER
PA
SS
WIL
LI
AM
S
AV
E
ST
ATI
ON
CA
LT
RAI
NB
AY
SH
OR
E
0.37%
VC=600’
K=46995
VC=600’
K=758
0.22% -0.25% 0.27% -0.42%
VC=600’
K=2839
VC=600’
K=1281 VC=600’
K=1143
VC=600’
K=860 VC=600’
K=1798
CALTRAIN
JA
ME
ST
OW
N
AV
EN
UE
LE
CO
NT
E
AV
EN
UE
KE
Y
AV
EN
UE
U.S.
HIG
HW
AY 10
1
SAN B
RUNO
AVEN
UE
CA
MP
BE
LL
AV
EN
UE
BE
AT
TY
AV
EN
UE
EV
AN
S
AV
EN
UE
JE
RR
OL
D
AV
EN
UE
QUINT STREET
OA
KD
AL
EAV
EN
UE
PA
LO
U
AV
EN
UE
NEWHALL STREET
TO
PE
KAA
VE
NU
E
TH
OR
NT
ON
AV
EN
UE
WIL
LIA
MS
AV
EN
UE
AR
MS
TR
ON
G
AV
EN
UE
BA
NC
RO
FT
AV
EN
UE
BAYSHORE BLVD
SA
LIN
AS
AV
EN
UE
PA
UL
AV
EN
UE
LA
TH
RO
P
AV
E
CIT
Y
OF
BRIS
BA
NE
SA
N
FR
AN
CIS
CO
CIT
Y
OF
CALIFORNIAWithout ever leaving the ground.
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY San Francisco - San Jose
PLAN
PROFILE
ROWEXISTING
Length: 4.8 miles Land Use: Urban
SAN FRANCISCO
SAN JOSE DIRIDON
Subsection #1-2
D E GF
HORIZ. SCALE:
100050 50
1"=50’
500 500 10000
1"=500’
VERT. SCALE:
3.21 3.87 4.36 5.77
tracks and its supporting columns are constraints in the northern portion of the subsection.tunnels and several embankment and trench segments. The I-280 freeway structure above the The existing Caltrain alignment passes through a series of hills and valleys necessitating 4 crossings near Mission Bay, all other street crossings in this subsection are grade separated. This subsection is located within the City and County of San Francisco. Except for two North of Common Street to South Portal Tunnel No. 4 (MP. 1.03 to MP. 5.77)
EXISTING CALTRAIN TUNNEL 3 LIMITS EXISTING CALTRAIN TUNNEL 4 LIMITS
(AERIAL/BERM)ELEVATED
(TRENCH/TUNNEL)BELOW GRADE
NOTES:
PROFILES SHOWN ARE TOR.2.CENTERLINE SHOWN IS PROPOSED MT2.1.
< 60’ROW WIDTH
> 100’ROW WIDTH
EXISTING (APPROX)
70’ - 79’
ROW WIDTH
60’ - 69’
ROW WIDTH
80’ - 89’
ROW WIDTH
90’ - 99’
ROW WIDTH
STATION
STATION
STATION
CALTRAIN GRADEEXISTING
OPTIONDESIGNROADWAY
(HST ONLY)(DEEP TUNNEL)BELOW GRADE
August 2010
(San Francisco/Brisbane)
DRAFT Supplemental Vertical Alternatives Discussion - Option A
AG-T-2 AG-2
cdavid
03-
AU
G-2010
10:30
IP_
PW
P:d
ms05695\
Subseg
ment_1_
Plan_
Profile2
A.dgn
SECTIONTYPICAL
101
305+00 310+00 315+00 320+00 325+00 330+00 335+00 340+00 345+00 350+00 355+00 360+00 365+00 370+00 375+00 380+00 385+00 390+00 395+00 400+00 405+00 410+00 415+00 420+00 425+00 430+00 435+00 440+00 445+00 450+00300+00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
-20
-40
-60
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
-20
-40
-60
240
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSISSAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U.S. Department
of Transportation Page 4-12Federal RailroadAdministration
4.3.1 Subsection 0 – San Francisco
Options Considered
Option 0(a)A – HST and Caltrain to both Transbay Transit Center (TTC) and 4th & King – This option assumesthat tracks will be added in an alignment under Townsend and Second Streets to reach a station in thebasement of the new Transbay Transit Center. This option assumes the Transbay Transit Center provides 4tracks for HST (two center platforms) and 2 tracks for Caltrain (one center platform). The 4th & King stationwould be reconfigured at-grade to provide longer platforms required by HST. The assumed station layout at4th & King provides 4 tracks for HST (two center platforms) and 5 tracks for Caltrain (two center platformsand one side platform for special ballpark service), plus an additional center platform for Caltrain along theunderground tracks heading to the Transbay Transit Center. See Appendix H for a schematic track diagramof the conceptual improvements at 4th & King Station.
Option 0(b)A – HST and Caltrain to TTC, Caltrain to 4th & King – This option follows the same alignment asOption 0(a)A. However, in this option, all HST service terminates at the Transbay Transit Center and the 4th
& King station is only served by Caltrain. This option assumes the Transbay Transit Center provides 4 tracksfor HST (two center platforms) and 2 tracks for Caltrain (one center platform).
Option 0(c)A – HST to 4th & King, Caltrain to both Transbay and 4th & King – This option is the reverse ofOption 0(b)A. All HST service terminates at the 4th & King station; the Transbay Transit Center is onlyserved by Caltrain. HST does not use the track extension under Townsend and Second Streets. The 4th &King station would be reconfigured at-grade to provide longer platforms required by HST. The assumedstation layout at 4th & King provides 8 tracks for HST (four center platforms) and 1 track for Caltrain (one sideplatform for special ballpark service) plus an additional center platform for Caltrain along the undergroundtracks heading to the Transbay Transit Center. See Appendix H for a conceptual plan of this option.
Option 0(d)A – HST and Caltrain to both Beale Street and 4th & King – This option assumes that tracks wouldbe added beyond the 4th & King station on an alignment that travels under Townsend Street, TheEmbarcadero and between Main and Beale Streets. The alignment passes under the Bay Bridge between theanchorage at Beale Street and piers located at Main Street. The alignment would end at an undergroundterminal oriented 90 degrees from the terminal assumed in Alternatives 0(a)A and 0(b)A. The terminal wouldbe located in a two-block area bordered by Beale Street, Harrison Street, Main Street and Folsom Street.
Several configurations of the alignment and terminal were investigated to find a configuration that wouldprovide the maximum number of station tracks within the terminal footprint. These configurations aredescribed in Appendix H, which also includes schematic track diagrams, conceptual plans, and conceptualcross sections. The best configuration from the perspective of train operations provides 6 tracks for HST(three center platforms) and 2 tracks for Caltrain (one double-length center platform). The 4th & King stationwould be reconfigured at-grade to provide the longer platforms required by HST. The assumed station layoutat 4th & King is similar to that under Option 0(a)A, and provides 4 tracks for HST (two center platforms) and 5tracks for Caltrain (two center platforms and one side platform for special ballpark service), plus an additionalcenter platform for Caltrain along the underground tracks heading to the Transbay Transit Center.
Options Carried Forward
Option 0(a)A, in which HST and Caltrain service is offered at the Transbay and 4th & King locations, has beenidentified to be carried forward into further engineering and environmental analysis. Option 0(a)A is a variant of theTJPA’s approved configuration for the Transbay Transit Center with added capacity for HST and Caltrain at the 4th &King station.
Options Not Carried Forward
The following options were not carried forward because they either do not meet project objectives (Options 0(b)Aand 0(c)A) or, in the case of Option 0(d)A, provide the same level of service and capacity as Option 0(a)A withsignificant constructability risks not present with Option 0(a)A.
Option 0(b)A, with which all HST service goes to the Transbay Transit Center and there is no HST service atthe 4th & King station, is not practicable and does not meet project purpose and need and objectives due toinsufficient capacity. A conceptual operational analysis of the San Francisco terminal options (see memo inAppendix K) indicated that for most of the day, the terminal capacity is constrained to 4 to 5 trains per hour.This is significantly less than the 10 HST trains per hour objective described in Section 4.1.2.
Option 0(c)A, which assumes that all HST service terminates at the 4th & King station, does not satisfyProposition 1A as HST service would not reach the Transbay terminal as a San Francisco terminus. It alsolacks sufficient operational capacity, does not connect with regional bus service, and is inconsistent withadopted plans and policies. This inconsistency would result in schedule delays while this option goes throughthe San Francisco planning and environmental review process. As described in Appendices H and K, OptionO(c)A will not support the operation of the conceptual service plan assumed for this analysis. In theoperations analysis simulation, the configuration of the yard throat consistently caused multiple delays ofbetween 45 seconds and 8.5 minutes to both inbound and outbound trains.
Option 0(d)A with which HST service would go to a Beale Street station at Transbay Terminal and also to a4th & King station is not practicable because of difficulties constructing the tunnel along The Embarcadero andunder the Bay Bridge and because it would have extensive impacts to properties and displacements. It is alsoinconsistent with adopted plans and policies. This option is not practical to construct due to the proximity ofthe Bay Bridge anchorage and piers to the tunnel alignment. The tracks that approach the terminal would belocated deep underground between the Bay Bridge Anchorage and Pier “A” located on the west side of MainStreet. The tunnel structure would be within a “zone of influence” of both bridge support structures,requiring shoring to prevent excavation for the tunnel structure from affecting the stability of both bridgestructures. Option 0(d)A would also require substantial right of way acquisition including: a residentialcondominium development with 287 units at 201 Harrison Street; 201 Folsom Street, which has beenapproved for a residential development with 725 units; a residential condominium development with 31 unitsat 501 Beale Street, another residential condominium development with 112 units at 88 Townsend Street anda U.S. Postal Service property owned by the federal government. The TJPA has estimated that the right-of-way acquisition cost for Option 0(d)A would be approximately $1.02 billion. This compares to an estimatedright-of-way acquisition cost for Option 0(a)A of approximately $280 million.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSISSAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U.S. Department
of Transportation Page 4-13Federal RailroadAdministration
Table 4-3Summary Comparison of Design Options for Subsection 0 – San Francisco
Evaluation Measure0(a)A – HST & Caltrain to both
Transbay and 4th & King
0(b)A – HST to Transbay,Caltrain to both Transbay and
4th & King
0(c)A – HST to 4th & King,Caltrain to both Transbay
and 4th & King
0(d)A – HST & Caltrain to bothBeale Street and 4th & King
Covered Trench/Tunnel Covered Trench/Tunnel At Grade Covered Trench/Tunnel
DesignObjectives
Maximize ridership / revenuepotential
Travel time Essentially the same for Options 0(a)Aand 0(d)A
Unable to consistently meet travel timeobjectives due to congestion resultingfrom insufficient operational capacity
Does not meet project objectivesbecause the Transbay Terminalwould not be a San Franciscoterminus; insufficient operationalcapacity
Essentially the same for Options 0(a)Aand 0(d)A
Route length Essentially the same for Options 0(a)A,0(b)A and 0(d)AEssentially the same for Options 0(a)A,0(b)A and 0(d)A Shorter than other options
Essentially the same for Options 0(a)A,0(b)A and 0(d)A
Maximize connectivity andaccessibility Intermodal connections Same for Options 0(a)A and 0(b)A Same for Options 0(a)A and 0(b)A
Does not connect to BART orregional bus service
Platforms not located directly underregional bus terminal
Minimize operating andcapital costs
Operating and Maintenance (O&M)costs (relative costs associatedwith different options)
Same for Options 0(a)A, 0(b)A and0(d)A
Same for Options 0(a)A, 0(b)A and0(d)A Lower than other options
Same for Options 0(a)A, 0(b)A and0(d)A
Capital cost, does not include ROW
Lower than Option 0(d)A sinceconstruction would occur at theTransbay Transit Center, higher thanOption 0(b) since 4th & King would bereconfigured for HST
Lower than Option 0(a)A since 4th &King would not be reconfigured for HST
Lowest since Transbay Transit Centerwould not be configured for HST
Highest since construction would occuron a separate site from the TransbayTransit Center
Acquisition cost of additional ROW Lower than Option 0(d)A, higher thanOption 0(c)ALower than Option 0(a)A, higher thanOption 0(c)A Lowest Highest
Land Use
Development potential forTOD within walking distanceof station
Development potential for TODwithin 1/2 mile of station location Same for Options 0(a)A and 0(b)A Same for Options 0(a)A and 0(b)A
Lower than Option 0(d)A since only4th & King is served by HST
Lower than Options 0(a)A and 0(b)Asince terminal would occupy site ofpotential TOD planned with TransbayTransit Center
Consistency with otherplanning efforts and adoptedplans
Qualitative analysis of applicableplanning and policy documents
Consistent with adopted plans andpolicies
Consistent with adopted plans andpolicies
Inconsistent with adopted plans andpolicies
Inconsistent with adopted plans andpolicies
Constructability
Constructability, access forconstruction, within existingtransportation ROW (doesnot include stationconstructability impacts)
Need for temporary constructioneasements (TCE)
Essentially the same for Options 0(a)Aand 0(b)A, substantial impacts from cutand cover construction in street ROW
Essentially the same for Options 0(a)Aand 0(b)A, substantial impacts from cutand cover construction in street ROW
Lower than other options
Substantial impacts from cut and coverconstruction in street ROW, federalownership of Post Office property coulddelay ROW acquisition
Disruption to existingrailroads
Identify existing freight rail andother rail service connections None
Disruption / relocation ofutilities
Identify major utilities requiringrelocation Same for Options 0(a)A and 0(b)A Same for Options 0(a)A and 0(b)A Lower than Options 0(a)A and 0(b)A
Potential disruption to Bay Bridgeanchorage and pier
Disruption toCommunities
DisplacementsPotential impact on properties dueto ultimate ROW requirements andgrade separations
Medium Medium Medium High. Several residential condominiumdevelopments would be affected.
Properties with accessaffected Properties with access affected None
Local traffic effects aroundstation Increase in traffic congestion Same for Options 0(a)A and 0(d)A
Less than Options 0(a)A and 0(d)A sinceonly Transbay Transit Center wouldhave HST service
Less than Option 0(b)A since HSTridership would be lower Same for Options 0(a)A and 0(d)A
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSISSAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U.S. Department
of Transportation Page 4-14Federal RailroadAdministration
Evaluation Measure0(a)A – HST & Caltrain to both
Transbay and 4th & King
0(b)A – HST to Transbay,Caltrain to both Transbay and
4th & King
0(c)A – HST to 4th & King,Caltrain to both Transbay
and 4th & King
0(d)A – HST & Caltrain to bothBeale Street and 4th & King
Covered Trench/Tunnel Covered Trench/Tunnel At Grade Covered Trench/Tunnel
Local traffic effects alongalignment and at gradecrossings
Identify streets with permanentloss of traffic lanes due to ultimateROW requirements and identifytraffic effects at grade crossings
None
EnvironmentalResources
Waterways and wetlands andnatural preserves orbiologically sensitive habitatareas affected
Waterways (acres of waterwayswithin ultimate ROW) None
Critical habitat (presence ofwaterways providing critical habitatfor coastal steelhead, identified asPresent or None)
None
Cultural resources
Number of historic structureswithin ultimate ROW 4 4 4 4
Archeological Sensitivity (identifiedas present or not)
Present; potential disturbance depends on siting of vent structures, tunnel portals, and tunnel depth; lower impacts for At Grade option because of less grounddisturbance and shorter alignment.
Parklands Acres of parklands within ultimateROW None
Agricultural lands Acres of farmland Not applicable
EnvironmentalMeasures
Noise and Vibration effectson sensitive receivers
Noise: Number of residential (R),institutional (I), medical (M),School (S) and park (P) propertieswithin 300' of ultimate ROW
Lower impacts than At Grade option;impacts for this option depend on sitingof vent structures, tunnel portals, andtunnel depth
Lower impacts than At Grade option;impacts for this option depend on sitingof vent structures, tunnel portals, andtunnel depth
R=101-200
Lower impacts than At Grade option;impacts for this option depend on sitingof vent structures, tunnel portals, andtunnel depth
Vibration: Number of residential(R), institutional (I), medical (M),School (S) and park (P) propertieswithin 200' of ultimate ROW
Low impacts expected, but depends onsiting of vent structures, tunnel portals,and tunnel depth
Low impacts expected, but depends onsiting of vent structures, tunnel portals,and tunnel depth
R=101-200Low impacts expected, but depends onsiting of vent structures, tunnel portals,and tunnel depth
Change in visual / scenicresources
Number of residential (R),institutional (I)and park (P)properties immediately adjacent tothe ultimate ROW
Visual setting would not be affected by the below-ground alternatives in Subsection 0; the At Grade option would be adjacent to residents who already have directviews of the Caltrain service (R=301-500).
Number of scenic roadways thatcross the ROW None
Maximize avoidance of areaswith geological and soilsconstraints
Percent of ultimate ROWsusceptible to liquefaction 75% 75% 100% 86%
Maximize avoidance of areaswith potential hazardousmaterials
Number of contaminatedproperties within ultimate ROW/within 1/4 mile of ultimate ROW
0/2; impacts depend on siting of ventstructures, tunnel portals, and tunneldepth
0/2 0/2 0/2
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSISSAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U.S. Department
of Transportation Page 4-16Federal RailroadAdministration
4.3.2 Subsection 1 – San Francisco
Options Considered
Subsection 1A – North of Mission Bay Drive to South of 16th Street
o At Grade
o Covered Trench/Tunnel
Subsection 1B – South of 16th Street to South of 23rd Street
o At Grade
o Covered Trench/Tunnel
Subsection 1C – South of 23rd Street to North of Cesar Chavez Street
o At Grade
o Covered Trench/Tunnel
Subsection 1D – North of Cesar Chavez Street to South of Quint Street
o At Grade
o Covered Trench/Tunnel
Subsection 1E – South of Quint Street to North of Williams Street
o At Grade
o Covered Trench/Tunnel
Subsection 1F – North of Williams Street to South of Paul Avenue
o At Grade
o Covered Trench/Tunnel
Subsection 1G – South of Paul Avenue to South of Portal Tunnel No. 4
o At Grade
o Covered Trench/Tunnel
Options Carried Forward
The At Grade and Covered Trench/Tunnel options have been identified to be carried forward into further engineeringand environmental analysis. Both options include tunnels parallel to existing Caltrain tunnels 1-4. With the At Gradeoption, the new tunnels would be at approximately the same depth as the existing tunnels, while under the CoveredTrench/Tunnel option the new tunnels would be deeper than the existing tunnels. Under either option, Caltrain andfreight would continue to use the existing Caltrain tracks. The Covered Trench/Tunnel option would begin as ashallow tunnel under 7th Street and continue as a deeper tunnel under Pennsylvania Avenue. Substantial right-of-wayacquisition would be required along 7th Street if the At Grade option was selected in this segment. The existingrailroad leads to the Port of San Francisco and Hunters Point would continue to be served by the existing Caltraintracks under both options.
Options Not Carried Forward
None.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSISSAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U.S. Department
of Transportation Page 4-17Federal RailroadAdministration
Table 4-4Summary Comparison of Design Options for Subsection 1 – San Francisco
Evaluation Measure
1A - North of Mission Bay Drive to South of 16thStreet
1B & 1C - South of 16th Street to Northof Cesar Chavez Street
1D, 1E, 1F & 1G - North of Cesar ChavezStreet to South Portal Tunnel No. 4
At Grade Covered Trench/ Tunnel At GradeCovered Trench /
Tunnel At GradeCovered Trench/
Tunnel
DesignObjectives
Maximize ridership /revenue potential
Travel time Same for all options Same for all options Same for all options
Route length Same for all options Same for all options Same for all options
Maximize connectivity andaccessibility Intermodal connections Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
Minimize operating andcapital costs
Operating and Maintenance (O&M)costs (relative costs associated withdifferent vertical alignment options)
LowestHigher than At Grade option,due to tunnel walls, drainage,ventilation, life safety, etc
High High High High
Capital cost ($ 2009), does notinclude ROW 114 million 114 million 299 million 299 million 458-1,049 million 978 million
Acquisition cost of additional ROW Highest Lowest Lowest Lowest Highest Lowest
Land Use
Development potential forTOD within walkingdistance of station
Development potential for TODwithin 1/2 mile of station location Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
Consistency with otherplanning efforts andadopted plans
Qualitative analysis of applicableplanning and policy documents Consistent with adopted plans and policies
Consistent with adoptedplans and policies
Inconsistent withadopted plans andpolicies
Consistent with adopted plans and policies
Constructability
Constructability, accessfor construction, withinexisting transportationROW (does not includestation constructabilityimpacts)
Need for temporary constructioneasements (TCE)
Construction would primarilyoccur within ultimate ROW
Construction would primarilyoccur within ultimate ROW;TCE required at tunnel portallocations
Construction wouldprimarily occur withinultimate ROW
Construction wouldprimarily occur withinultimate ROW; TCErequired at tunnelportal locations
Construction wouldprimarily occur withinultimate ROW
Construction wouldprimarily occur withinultimate ROW; TCErequired at tunnel portallocations
Disruption to existingrailroads
Identify existing freight rail andother rail service connections None None
Disruption / relocation ofutilities
Identify major utilities requiringrelocation None None None
Disruption toCommunities
DisplacementsPotential impact on properties dueto ultimate ROW requirements andgrade separations
Low; Approximately 10% ofsubsection has existing ROW
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSISSAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
U.S. Department
of Transportation Page 4-18Federal RailroadAdministration
Evaluation Measure
1A - North of Mission Bay Drive to South of 16thStreet
1B & 1C - South of 16th Street to Northof Cesar Chavez Street
1D, 1E, 1F & 1G - North of Cesar ChavezStreet to South Portal Tunnel No. 4
At Grade Covered Trench/ Tunnel At GradeCovered Trench /
Tunnel At GradeCovered Trench/
Tunnel
Local traffic effects alongalignment and at gradecrossings
Identify streets with permanent lossof traffic lanes due to ultimate ROWrequirements and identify trafficeffects at grade crossings
Improved traffic conditions with grade separations at MissionBay Drive and 16th Street None None
EnvironmentalResources
Waterways and wetlandsand natural preserves orbiologically sensitivehabitat areas affected
Waterways (acres of waterwayswithin ultimate ROW) None 0.05
0.34, may be avoideddepending on sitingof vent shafts, tunnelportals, and tunneldepth
0.15
Lower impact than At-Grade option, dependingon siting of vent shafts,tunnel portals, and tunneldepth
Critical habitat (presence ofwaterways providing critical habitatfor coastal steelhead, identified asPresent or None)
None None 2 2
Cultural resources
Number of historic structures withinultimate ROW None 2 None None
Archeological Sensitivity (identifiedas present or not) Present Present Present
Parklands Acres of parklands within ultimateROW None None 0.68Lower impacts than AtGrade option
Agricultural lands Acres of farmland Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
EnvironmentalMeasures
Noise and Vibrationeffects on sensitivereceivers
Noise: Number of residential (R),institutional (I), medical (M) school(S), and park (P) properties within300' of ultimate ROW
None R=301-500, I
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS SUPPLEMENTAL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
Page 4-2
US Department of Tra ns porta tion Federa l Railroad Admin is tra tion
4.3 Summary of Evaluation Results
For clarity, the following paragraphs are reprinted from the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report:
On the following pages, the study corridor is described from north to south by subsection. When a new subsection is introduced, the first set of facing pages provides an overview of the subsection and the evaluation highlights for that subsection. The top of the left hand page includes a brief description of the subsection, followed by an aerial photograph showing the horizontal placement of the study corridor. Below the aerial is a schematic diagram of the vertical design options considered in the evaluation. The subsection boundaries are shown graphically below the schematic diagram.
At the top of the right hand page, the sub-subsections are listed with the applicable vertical design options that were carried forward into the detailed evaluation. Following this listing, some pages include notes on the feasibility of specific vertical profiles. These notes are derived from the engineering analysis of the plan and profile, as shown in Appendix B. The location corresponding to each note is shown on the schematic diagram on the left hand page. Following the feasibility notes (if present) is a listing and description of the options carried forward into preliminary engineering design and environmental review as part of the EIR/EIS. This is followed by a listing of the options that will not be carried forward, including the primary reasons for this recommendation.
Station alternatives are discussed in the subsection where they are located. The following stations and location alternatives are being carried forward for further engineering and environmental analysis in these respective subsections:
• Downtown San Francisco – Subsection 0A
• Millbrae (SFO) – Subsection 3D
• Potential Mid-Peninsula Station Locations:
o Redwood City – Subsection 4C
o Palo Alto – Subsection 6A
o Mountain View – Subsection 7B
• San Jose Diridon – Subsection 9B
Following the introductory set of facing pages are a series of tables noting the presence, absence, extent, or amount of each impact, resource, hazard, sensitive receptor, or land use. In these tables, the vertical options identified to be carried forward for further engineering and environmental analysis are indicated with a white background in the table heading. Those options which were not carried forward are indicated with a black background in the table heading. In addition, for those options not carried forward, the primary reason(s) for this recommendation is indicated by shading in the table.
4.3.1 Subsection 0 – San Francisco No modifications or updates to this section.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS SUPPLEMENTAL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE SECTION
Page 4-5
US Department of Tra ns porta tion Federa l Railroad Admin is tra tion
4.3.2 Subsection 1 – San Francisco This section has been modified to read as follows:
Options Considered
• Subsection 1A – North of Mission Bay Drive to South of 16th Street
o At Grade
o Covered Trench/Tunnel
• Subsection 1B – South of 16th Street to South of 23rd Street
o At Grade
o Covered Trench/Tunnel
• Subsection 1C – South of 23rd Street to North of Cesar Chavez Street
o At Grade
o Covered Trench/Tunnel
• Subsection 1D – North of Cesar Chavez Street to South of Quint Street
o At Grade
o Covered Trench/Tunnel
• Subsection 1E – South of Quint Street to North of Williams Street
o At Grade
o Covered Trench/Tunnel
• Subsection 1F – North of Williams Street to South of Paul Avenue
o At Grade
o Covered Trench/Tunnel
• Subsection 1G – South of Paul Avenue to South of Portal Tunnel No. 4
o At Grade
o Covered Trench/Tunnel
Options Carried Forward
In this area of hilly terrain, a combined At Grade and Covered Trench/Tunnel option is recommended to be carried forward into further engineering and environmental analysis. This option includes a new 2-track tunnel parallel to existing 2-track Caltrain tunnels 1-4 made necessary by the hills and steep terrain along this alignment. Caltrain and freight would continue to use the existing Caltrain tracks. The new 2-track Covered Trench/Tunnel would begin as a shallow tunnel under 7th Street and continue as a deeper tunnel under Pennsylvania Avenue. Substantial right-of-way acquisition would be required along 7th Street if a 4-track At Grade option was selected in this segment. The existing railroad leads to the Port of San Francisco and Hunters Point would continue to be served by the existing Caltrain tracks.
Options Not Carried Forward
None.
Table 4-1 Summary Comparison of Design Options for Subsection 1 – San Francisco
No modifications or updates to this Table.
Appendix B
Appendix B: Evaluation Matrix of CHSRA Selected Alternative with Comments by SFTWG
Source: CHSRA Preliminary and Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Reports & SFTWG analysis
Summary Comparison Table (rev07)
11/17/2010 DRAFT Page 1 of 2
Section 0(a)A: (2.2 miles)HST & Caltrain to both Transbay and
4th/King Covered Trench/Tunnel At Grade to 4th/King Covered Trench/Tunnel to TTC At Grade to 4th/King Mined Tunnel to TTC At Grade to 4th/King Covered Trench/Tunnel to TTC
Travel time Met travel time objectives
Route length Met route length objectivesMaximize connectivity and accessibility
Intermodal connections Connects with both Transbay and 4th &
King22nd Street Station Not applicable
Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs (relative costs associated with different options)
Higher than at-grade option LowestHigher than At Grade option due to
tunnel walls, drainage, ventilation, life safety, etc.
High High High High
Capital cost, does not include ROW
$3,000 million $44 million $70 million $21 million $271 million $71 million $955 million
Acquisition cost of additional ROW
Higher than at-grade option Highest Lowest Lowest Lowest Highest Lowest
Development potential for TOD within ½ mile of station location
Development potential for TOD within ½ mile of station location
Yes
Consistency with other planning efforts and adopted plans
Qualitative analysis of applicable planning and policy documents
Consistent with adopted plans and policies / Additionally, SFTWG would
like to confirm that the PUC Wastewater Master Plan was
consulted.
Consistent with adopted plans and policies / SFTWG disagrees with this
assessment: grade separations and at-grade rail will divide neighborhood. Additionally, SFTWG would like to confirm that the PUC Wastewater
Master Plan was consulted.
Inconsistent with adopted plans and policies / SFTWG doesn't understand why only this option is inconsistent. Additionally, SFTWG would like to confirm that the PUC Wastewater
Master Plan was consulted.
Constructability, access for construction, within existing transportation ROW (does not include station constructability impacts)
Need for temporary construction easements (TCE)
Substantial impacts from cut-and-cover construction in street ROW
Construction would primarily occur within ultimate ROW
Construction would primarily occur within ulitmate ROW; TCE required at
tunnel portal locations
Construction would primarily occur within ultimate ROW
Construction would primarily occur within ultimate ROW; TCE required at
tunnel portal locations
Construction would primarily occur within ultimate ROW
Construction would primarily occur within ultimate ROW; TCE required at
tunnel portal locations
Disruption to existing railroads
Identify existing freight rail and other rail service connections
None / SFTWG disagrees: Caltrain currently operates on this ROW.
Construction could impact service.
Disruption / relocation of utilities
Identify major utilities requiring relocations
Some None Some None Some
Displacements
Potential impact on properties due to ultimate ROW requirements and grade separations
Medium
Low; Approximately 10% of subsection has existing ROW
Summary Comparison Table (rev07)
11/17/2010 DRAFT Page 2 of 2
Section 0(a)A: (2.2 miles)HST & Caltrain to both Transbay and
4th/King Covered Trench/Tunnel At Grade to 4th/King Covered Trench/Tunnel to TTC At Grade to 4th/King Mined Tunnel to TTC At Grade to 4th/King Covered Trench/Tunnel to TTC
Subsection 1D, 1E, 1F, & 1G: (3.46 miles)
North of Cesar Chavez Street to South Portal Tunnel No. 4
Subsection 1B & 1C: (0.99 miles)Subsection 1A: (0.28 miles)
North of Mission Bay Drive to South of 16th StreetEvaluation Measure
South of 16th Street to North of Cesar Chavez Street
CHSR Authority Alternative
Waterways (acres of waterways within ultimate ROW)
None 0.050.34, may be avoided depending on siting of vent shafts, tunnel portals,
and tunnel depth0.15
Lower impact than At Grade option, depending on siting of vent shafts and
tunnel portals, and tunnel depth
Critical habitat (presence of waterways providing critical habitat for coastal steelhead, identified as Present or None)
None None 2
Number of historic structures within ultimate ROW
4 2 None
Archeological Sensitivity (identified as present or not)
Present; potential disturbance depends on siting of vent structures, tunnel
portals, and tunnel depth
ParklandsAcres of parklands within ultimate ROW
None 0.68 Lower impacts than At Grade option
Agricultural lands Acres of farmland Not Applicable
Noise: Number of residential (R), institutional (I), medical (M), school (S) and park (P) properties within 200’ of ultimate ROW
Less than R=101-200; impacts depend on siting of vent structures, tunnel
portals, and tunnel depthR=301-500, I
